Expedition vs. Yukon vs. QX80

Here's another comparison that's not at elevation.

Link

Why does GM sell 3 times as many full sized SUVs as the rest of the market combined?

RSD559 wrote:

marcsbigfoot20b27 wrote:
Totally bogus. Axle ratios weren’t even in the same ballpark.
Go to 9:07 to see the stacked deck specs.

Oh geeeeze......I just looked up the town Dacono.
It’s at 5000 ft.
So both of the non turbo SUVs are down 18% hp.

So, you don't drive in the mountains? Parts of Arizona are high elevation. Power at altitude is important to a lot of us who tow through the Sierras and the Rockies and the Uintas and all of those other mountain ranges I can't remember the names of. How many tow only at sea level?

Sorry I think you missed my point.
I meant it’s not a fair comparison to drag race one turbo suv vs two NA suvs at high altitudes. I mean do it at 12,000 ft then and see how much better the Ford is.
They should have done the test at sea level AND 5000 feet to illustrate the real world difference. I own 2 chevys and a Ford so I’m not biased about brand.

And yes I tow all over the AZ mountains up at 7500 ft on the rim or up to the white mountains. Did it with modded NA Tahoe and now a modded 7.3 diesel. Turbo diesel is much better.

GM already has a 3.6l turbo. They just haven't put it in a truck yet.

Perrysburg Dodgeboy wrote:
The twin turbo will smoke everything out there, not sure why no one else is adapting this technology! Well Kia is but then they copy everyone's design and power plant. JS

Don

Don,
I thought I recall reading an article that FCA was developing their version of an EcoBoost engine but it looks like they went another direction with the E Torque system.

Incidentally, the eco boost V6 is the ONLY engine available in the Expy. The only real issue (for me anyways) is that when you option up to the Platinum model like we see in the video, the sticker goes north of $70K....

GM is overdue for some serious drivetrain updates...the 5.3 and 6.0 are dinosaurs compared to the EB and the Ram 6.4 Hemi with MDS.

Ford really seems to have their poop in a group with the new Expedition. You might almost say "it's a jewel".

RSD559 wrote:

marcsbigfoot20b27 wrote:
Totally bogus. Axle ratios weren’t even in the same ballpark.
Go to 9:07 to see the stacked deck specs.

Oh geeeeze......I just looked up the town Dacono.
It’s at 5000 ft.
So both of the non turbo SUVs are down 18% hp.

So, you don't drive in the mountains? Parts of Arizona are high elevation. Power at altitude is important to a lot of us who tow through the Sierras and the Rockies and the Uintas and all of those other mountain ranges I can't remember the names of. How many tow only at sea level?

Most people that RV actually go places that includes higher elevations. Proves to me the Ford is the most capable for such a task. It boils down to personal preference, all 3 are nice vehicle's and it doesn't make a tinker's darn to most if they are a few seconds later.

To me ergonomics, ride quality, stability, comfort, longevity are important as well.

marcsbigfoot20b27 wrote:
Totally bogus. Axle ratios weren’t even in the same ballpark.
Go to 9:07 to see the stacked deck specs.

Oh geeeeze......I just looked up the town Dacono.
It’s at 5000 ft.
So both of the non turbo SUVs are down 18% hp.

So, you don't drive in the mountains? Parts of Arizona are high elevation. Power at altitude is important to a lot of us who tow through the Sierras and the Rockies and the Uintas and all of those other mountain ranges I can't remember the names of. How many tow only at sea level?